Thomas Fischer wrote:
"default" has always
been a reserved name for a database, the whole feature
torque.database.default would not make sense otherwise.
Here I do not agree. _Because_ this configuration parameter exists, the
standard name "default" does not make sense. If one wishes the default
database's name to be "default", then it can be done by
torque.database.default=default
It's obviously difficult to make myself clear. This very Torque feature
is documented and works so that the meaning of the database/datasource
"default" can be routed to one of the existing database definitions. Why
doesn't that make sense? I'll try an example.
---8<---
torque.database.turbine.adapter=mysql
torque.dsfactory.turbine.factory=org.apache.torque.dsfactory.JndiDataSourceFactory
torque.dsfactory.turbine.jndi.path=java:/comp/env/jdbc/Turbine
torque.dsfactory.turbine.jndi.ttl=300000
torque.database.myapp.adapter=mysql
torque.dsfactory.myapp.factory=org.apache.torque.dsfactory.JndiDataSourceFactory
torque.dsfactory.myapp.jndi.path=java:/comp/env/jdbc/MyApp
torque.dsfactory.myapp.jndi.ttl=300000
---8<---
If I now generate OM classes for the database name "default", I can
decide - via configuration - which of the two database definitions to
use by simply setting
torque.database.default=turbine
or
torque.database.default=myapp
How would I achieve this without the feature discussed?
In this section, it says if you do not set the "name" attribute in the
schema.xml, the generator will set it to be "default". It does not say
anything about references during runtime.
It does.
---8<---
As Torque has the ability to use multiple databases you can tell it
which one to use by default thus...
torque.database.default=bookstore
---8<---
It doesn't matter if the name of that default database is a reference
internally. The intention was to give the user a choice and I second
that intention.
In my eyes, all boils down to
"Can we ask the turbine users to configure the database "default" in their
Torque.properties or not ?"
Where would this database point to? In my JNDI example above I would
still use the same connection pool but with other factories I would open
a second one when it is not exactly necessary. You might not need this
feature. I do. So what's wrong with it?
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
